Model comparison

GLM-4.5V vs Qwen3 8B

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.7

Rank #238 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5V leads 27.4 to 16.6.
  • Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
  • Qwen3 8B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 64K.

Side by side

GLM-4.5V and Qwen3 8B specifications
GLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.833.7
Released2025-08-112025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window64K131K
Max output16K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$1.80$0.70
Results tracked1511

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155), Qwen3 8B: 34.0 (#248)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
SciCode—22.6%
LMArena Coding1347—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: —, Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%

Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%—
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts1334—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—136.17

Math GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—56.1%
LMArena Math1354—

Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
GPQA Diamond—56.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.8%
LMArena Expert1353—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92), Qwen3 8B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
LMArena Vision1154—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177), Qwen3 8B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
LMArena Non-English1303—
LMArena Chinese1337—
LMArena Russian1298—
LMArena Spanish1336—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175), Qwen3 8B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1311—

Long Context GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1304—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170), Qwen3 8B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 8B
LMArena Text1333—
LMArena Creative Writing1295—
LMArena Multi-Turn1332—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen3 8B?

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5V or Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.

Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 34.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 8B does, with 131K tokens against 64K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen3 8B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper